Using the same timescale, Wikipedia itself (the Wikimedia Foundation) went from $5M revenue to $120M, 24x. [1],[2]. During that time the Executive Director's salary went from $168k to $387k[3]. At the end of Sue Gardner's leadership in 2014 there was a question about her $300k salary[4] which included the response:

"(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the transition period: $165,000."

This seems to undermine Mitchell Baker's reasons for her salary increase, doesn't it?

Wikipedia also gets a slightly higher score from CharityNavigator than Mozilla, edging them out on more efficient earnings, lower admin overhead, but far ahead on "growth of expenses": https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200049703 vs https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/200097189

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/#sec...

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...

[4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...

The Wikimedia Foundation is solely a charity and makes it's money from donations. The Mozilla Corporation makes it's money from the contracts the executives negotiate. None of the board members of the Mozilla Foundation, the nonprofit that owns the corporation, receive any salary from the Foundation.

They're not really comparable organizations. The corporate comparisons you started with were closer comparison, though Mozilla has some unique circumstances.